Kandel, Pujan

Abstract Background National guidelines recommend genomic profiling of tumor tissue to guide precision therapy. We compared the specimen adequacy for genomic profiling and yield of DNA between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Methods In our tandem, randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients undergoing EUS for evaluation of pancreatic masses underwent both conventional EUS-FNA with a 25-gauge needle and paired EUS-FNB (19 or 22-gauge needle), with the order randomized (EUS-FNA first followed by EUS-FNB, or vice versa). A minimum of one pass with each needle was obtained for histology. Second and third passes were performed to collect DNA. Specimens were evaluated by a cytopathologist blinded to the needle type. Specimen adequacy for genomic profiling was calculated based on FoundationOne clinical diagnostic (CDx) adequacy requirements. We compared the adequacy for genomic profiling DNA (quantity) and histology yields with both needles. Results Analysis included 50 patients (25 men; mean age 68 [standard deviation (SD) 13] years), with a mean lesion size of 38 (SD 17) mm; 37 lesions (74 %) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The mean DNA concentrations in PDAC by FNB and FNA needles were 5.930 (SD 0.881) µg/mL vs. 3.365 (SD 0.788) µg/mL, respectively (P = 0.01). The median standardized histology score per pass with EUS-FNB was 5 (sufficient for histology) and for EUS-FNA was 2 (enough for cytology). Specimen adequacy for genomic profiling and yield of DNA was significantly higher with FNB than with FNA needles. Conclusions In this study, adequacy for genomic profiling, DNA, and histology yield were considerably superior using an EUS-FNB needle compared with an EUS-FNA needle.

SummaryBackgroundBecause most pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) will never become malignant, currently advocated long‐term surveillance is low‐yield for most individuals.AimTo develop a score chart identifying IPMNs at lowest risk of developing worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata.MethodsWe combined prospectively maintained pancreatic cyst surveillance databases of three academic institutions. Patients were included if they had a presumed side‐branch IPMN, without worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata at baseline (as defined by the 2012 international Fukuoka guidelines), and were followed ≥ 12 months. The endpoint was development of one or more worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata during follow‐up. We created a multivariable prediction model using Cox‐proportional logistic regression analysis and performed an internal‐external validation.Results875 patients were included. After a mean follow‐up of 50 months (range 12‐157), 116 (13%) patients developed worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata. The final model included cyst size (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.09‐1.15), cyst multifocality (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01‐2.18), ever having smoked (HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.95‐2.04), history of acute pancreatitis (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.21‐3.55), and history of extrapancreatic malignancy (HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91‐1.97). After validation, the model had good discriminative ability (C‐statistic 0.72 in the Mayo cohort, 0.71 in the Columbia cohort, 0.64 in the Erasmus cohort).ConclusionIn presumed side branch IPMNs without worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata at baseline, the Dutch‐American Risk stratification Tool (DART‐1) successfully identifies pancreatic lesions at low risk of developing worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate a deep learning protocol to identify neoplasia in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) in comparison to current radiographic criteria. Methods A computer-aided framework was designed using convolutional neural networks to classify IPMN. The protocol was applied to magnetic resonance images of the pancreas. Features of IPMN were classified according to American Gastroenterology Association guidelines, Fukuoka guidelines, and the new deep learning protocol. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using surgically resected cystic lesions or healthy controls. Results Of 139 cases, 58 (42%) were male; mean (standard deviation) age was 65.3 (11.9) years. Twenty-two percent had normal pancreas; 34%, low-grade dysplasia; 14%, high-grade dysplasia; and 29%, adenocarcinoma. The deep learning protocol sensitivity and specificity to detect dysplasia were 92% and 52%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity to identify high-grade dysplasia or cancer were 75% and 78%, respectively. Diagnostic performance was similar to radiologic criteria. Areas under the receiver operating curves (95% confidence interval) were 0.76 (0.70–0.84) for American Gastroenterology Association, 0.77 (0.70–0.85) for Fukuoka, and 0.78 (0.71–0.85) for the deep learning protocol ( P = 0.90). Conclusions The deep learning protocol showed accuracy comparable to current radiographic criteria. Computer-aided frameworks could be implemented as aids for radiologists to identify high-risk IPMN.

Objective It is unclear whether endoscopic assessment of scars after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has to include biopsies, even if endoscopy is negative. Vice versa, endoscopic diagnosis of recurrent adenoma may not require biopsy before endoscopic reinterventions. We prospectively analysed various endoscopic modalities in the diagnosis of recurrence following EMR. Design We conducted a prospective study of patients undergoing colonoscopy after EMR of large (≥20 mm) colorectal neoplasia. Endoscopists predicted recurrence and confidence level with four imaging modes: high-definition white light (WL) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) with and without near focus (NF). Separately, 26 experienced endoscopists assessed offline images. Results Two hundred and thirty patients with 255 EMR scars were included. The prevalence of recurrent adenoma was 24%. Diagnostic values were high for all modes (negative predictive value (NPV) ≥97%, positive predictive value (PPV) ≥81%, sensitivity ≥90%, specificity ≥93% and accuracy ≥93%). In high-confidence cases, NBI with NF had NPV of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 93% to 100%). Use of clips at initial EMR increased diagnostic inaccuracy (adjusted OR=1.68(95% CI 1.01 to 2.75)). In offline assessment, specificity was high for all imaging modes (mean: ≥93% (range: 55%–100%)), while sensitivity was significantly higher for NBI-NF (82%(72%–93%)%)) compared with WL (69%(38%–86%); p<0.001), WL-NF (68%(55%–83%); p<0.001) and NBI (71%(59%–90%); p<0.001). Conclusion Our study demonstrates very high sensitivity and accuracy for all four imaging modalities, especially NBI with NF, for diagnosis of recurrent neoplasia after EMR. Our data strongly suggest that in cases of high confidence negative optical diagnosis based on NBI-NF, no biopsy is needed to confirm absence of recurrence during colorectal EMR follow-up. A high confidence positive optical diagnosis can lead to immediate resection of any suspicious area. In all cases of low confidence, biopsy is still required. Trial registration number NCT02668198 .

Background Venous congestion after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction is a complication that may be partially attributable to variations in venous abdominal wall anatomy. In previous work, we have shown that ferumoxytol may be used as a bloodpool contrast agent to perform high-resolution venous imaging. Our current aim was to use this technology to perform a detailed analysis of the venous anatomy among patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Methods All patients undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction with preoperative ferumoxytol-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (FE-MRA) were retrospectively reviewed. A detailed anatomic analysis of each abdominal wall on FE-MRAwas performed before review of operative findings. Statistical analysis was used to determine venous characteristics associated with superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) augmentation. Results From 2012 to 2016, 59 patients underwent preoperative FE-MRA. This resulted in imaging for 118 hemiabdomen and 99 flaps. Superficial-deep communication was identified in 117 of 118 hemiabdomen. Fifty (93%) of 59 patients had greater than 1-mm venous communication of the superficial system across midline. Reconstructed breasts were based on dominant medial row perforators in 82 (83%) of 99 flaps. The mean diameters of the SIEVand dominant venous perforator were 3.8 and 2.8mm, respectively. Anatomic characteristics associated with SIEVaugmentation included SIEVdiameter ( P = 0.01), dominant perforator diameter ( P = 0.04), and the ratio between these 2 variables ( P = 0.001). Conclusions Ferumoxytol-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography provides excellent imaging of the venous system. Anatomic characteristics such as the diameter of the SIEVand the diameter of the dominant perforator may be useful in determining which flaps require venous augmentation using the SIEV.